The main legal point established in the judgment is that awareness of property transactions and failure to take timely action can render a suit time-barred under the Limitation Act.

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) IA No. 5428/2007 (u/o 22 R 10a CPC by LRs of Plaintiff No. 2)Notice, which is accepted by the counsel for the non-applicants. This application has been filed seeking substitution of the legal representatives of plaintiff No. 2, who passed away on 16. 4. 2007 and is survived by his wife, daughter and son. There is no opposition to the application. The application is allowed. Amended Memo of Parties be filed within a week.

( 2 ) CS (OS) No. 344/2006 the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of possession of suit property bearing Khasra land Survey no. 417 measuring 3 bighas 19 biswas situated in village Masjid Moth, New Delhi and for declaration that the sale of property by late Gajdev Singh through registered sale deed dated 29. 08. 1956 (claimed by defendants 1-4 to be dated 27. 08. 1956) measuring one bighas out of the suit property measuring 3 bighas and 19 biswas to M/s National Pottery Works as also of one bigha sold out of the same vide sale deed dated 27. 06. 1955 (claimed by defendants 1-4 to be dated 27. 08. 1956), one bigha sold vide sale deed dated 06. 01. 1958, 19 biswas vide sale deed dated 23. 11. 1953 (claimed by defendants 1-4 to be dated 23. 11. 1955) and 19 biswas vide sale deed dated 06. 01. 1958 be declared null and void.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Gajdev Singh and had filed an earlier suit being the suit no. 1676/95 before this Court claiming title and possession of the suit property being the same Khasra no 417, measuring 3 bighas 19 biswas situated at Village Masjid Moth. This suit was apparently transferred to the Districts Courts on increase of pecuniary jurisdiction and was withdrawn on 30. 11. 2005 by the plaintiffs with liberty to file a fresh suit before appropriate forum. Hence, the present suit.

( 4 ) THE claim of the plaintiffs is that on 01. 10. 1945 late Sh. Gajdev Singh and mr. Devdutt Singh, sons of Chaudhary Prithi Singh during their lifetime executed a lease deed in respect of the suit property in favour of M/s National Pottery works.

( 5 ) THE lease deed provided for extension of the same on execution of a fresh deed, but it is stated that no such fresh lease deed was executed. In 1955, there was a partition of the property bearing khasra no. 416 and 417 and as a sequitur to the same, khasra no. 417 had fallen to the share of late Sh. Gajdev singh. The tenancy of the M/s National Pottery Works is alleged to have been orally terminated on expiry of the lease. The lease was alleged to be for five years and thus M/s National Pottery Works is alleged to have no rights in the property after 1950. Late Sh. Gajdev Singh is stated to have passed away on 21. 7. 1981 and his name is stated to be appearing in khasra Girdawari throughout. The plaintiffs claim to have made representations and have filed applications for effecting the mutation in the name of the legal representatives but the needful was not done. However for the first time on 08. 08. 1995 the names of the defendants came to be recorded in the khasra Girdawari and it is in view thereof that the earlier suit was filed in May 1995 by the plaintiffs for declaration and correction of revenue records as also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any charge, alienation or construction in the suit property.

( 6 ) THE plaintiffs further stated in the plaint that it is only in the year 2003 they came to know that a suit no. 1845/2000 was pending before this court and a receiver had been appointed when representatives of the parties came to the site at khasra no. 416 and 417. Thereafter the plaintiffs filed an application for impleadment in the said suit.

( 7 ) IN the earlier suit file by the plaintiffs, defendants did not come forth to file the documents of title, but it was only on 24. 09. 2005 that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( "the said Code" for short) was filed by defendant no. 9 therein mentioning the s